just to start some trouble (*warning*politics)

[melon]

Well, assuming that people did try a Civil War, much has changed since the 1860s. I don't know how any sizeable group resistance equipped with AK-47s would be able to win against American military power, with their bombs, tanks, planes, etc.

Don't mistake what I've said: I certainly am not advocating or in support of violence or war. I'm just pointing out what would likely happen if open resistance did break out.

Melon

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

Yes you can forget about anything that even resembles that. No chance not a single chance that would be just a blood bath. No I really think there is nothing to do for the now , but I hope you can figure out a plan as to make this not something that can be repeated at will.

 

[chastity]

A civil war could happen but for it too happen a lot more people would need real proof of the events we feel happened. Plus they would have to have fire arms etc to do it let alone what the government would have the military do

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

"A civil war could happen"

No it could not sorry but that will not ever happen again in your history , I am willing to bet on that.

It would be madness there is no way that anyone group of "people" can stand toe to toe with "GiJoe"

sorry

 

[Perris Calderon]

I still haven't seen enough to convince me the election was a fraud.

thepatriot... great post

first, what I stated was really not over the top, it's self evident...I'm not claiming that there was fraud, I'm saying it seems like there was and we need to find out

from that, it's self evident; if there is fraud that placed this man in office then we ARE under seige...there is no two ways about that...one necessarily follows the other

however, I haven't seen nearly enough to convince me that there is fraud either thepatriot

what I have seen is enough that should raise an alarm in every single person that considers them selfs a patriot of America.

this needs to be investigated, and my fears need to be laid to waste.

here's what I've discovered as to why the media has been relatively quiet;

first, they are pressured into not appearing liberal, since people believe the wealthy mantra; "the liberal media", so the media is on their toes to avoid that appearance.

second, journalists are result oriented, and since Kerry conceded, then no result would come of the investigation...thus, no great effort.'

hopefully, the INTERNET will bear enough pressure to change that sorry state of affairs

 

[Xie]

I don't think we would have to take up weapons for a "civil war". I would like to see a large scale civil disobedience movement. Millions of people that will not obey would be much more affective against a modern day government then trying to take up arms against them.

 

[Xie]

...now that he's been reelected with a GOP Congress, if things still go wrong, he won't have Clinton to blame anymore. He'll only be able to blame himself...but let's see what lies Karl Rove can whip up next.

He would probably fall back on 9/11 as a reason for his failure as he did for the first 4 years.

 

[ThePatriot]

Perris, I was just trying to put things in perspective, not trying to imply anything...and I think we can both agree that nothing is really "over the top" these days! (i think you knew that, and you were doing the same thing tho)

I agree 100% if there is fraud then we are under siege of sorts, and as much as I supported this administration I will be the first to call them to the carpet to answer for it.

On the Civil War aspect. Yes, it very well could happen, and I'll tell you why. We had this very discussion when I went into the National Guard just after coming off active duty. I dont remember what started the whole thing, but it was basically the same topic...where would our place be (as Natl Guardsmen) in a Civil War? Most of the lifers agreed that since the Guard is run by the State it is in, not by the Federal Govt, it would be more a choice of the state, the people of the state, and ultimately the people in the Uniform. Most of us at the time agreed that if it were a runaway Govt that we felt duty bound to restore rightful power, not to follow the Govt blindly. Whether that be fighting other states or the regular Army notwithstanding. We would follow our conscienses not our allegiances. Now, I fully understand that this was confined to a small and local group, but I think that view is more than likely to be shared by many others. Keep in mind that as a group, a lot is asked of National Guardsmen. They must have the will to pull you from a flooded stream one week, and be able to billy club your rioting ass the next...then go back to work on Monday in the cubicle next to you!

I agree with Xie, I don't think it will ever come to that, but it has to make you a little more confident inside knowing that if it had to it could. Our Founding Fathers, they had vision. Great vision.

 

[Son Goku]

those damn unwashed masses are the downfall of everything!

And yet, here is where we would have a disagreement. Yes I pointed out certain arguably elitist thinking on the part of the fore fathers. But I do not really agree here... It could just as well be argued that the power elite has been the downfall of us all in so many ways...

Many things could be brought up, including:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp

American government officials called their part in the holocaust Operation Keelhaul. In his book Operation Keelhaul (1973), Julius Epstein described the meaning of the term:

To keelhaul is the cruelest and most dangerous of punishments and tortures ever devised for men aboard a ship. It involves trussing a man up with ropes, throwing him overboard, unable to swim, and hauling him under the boat's keel from one side to the other, or even from stem to stern. Most of those keelhauled under water are already dead when their punishment is over.

And Epstein describes his reaction to the choice of this term by American government officials to describe their part in the Allied holocaust:

That our Armed Forces should have adopted this term as its code name for deporting by brutal force to concentration camp, firing squad, or hangman's noose millions who were already in the lands of freedom, shows how little the high brass thought of their longing to be free.

The roles played by each of the conspirators was clear: Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing.

How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag...

This is by no means the first reference I've heard to operation Keelhaul, and only one thing that could be mentioned.

Suffice it to say, I would trust the masses with the fate of our nation long before I would trust politicians (and certain others) as a general class

 

[melon]

I don't think we would have to take up weapons for a "civil war". I would like to see a large scale civil disobedience movement. Millions of people that will not obey would be much more affective against a modern day government then trying to take up arms against them.

It wouldn't even take that much. If people refused to go to work and refused to buy only the most essential of goods (i.e., food), all the political power in the world wouldn't match up against us. Even if only the blue states did this, it would be enough to bring the U.S. to its knees, as the wealthier "blue states" often fund projects in many of the "red states" as is.

We laugh at the French, but this is a hallmark of their culture: protest. People on the left have plenty to protest about in this country, but what do they choose to do? Act like hippies and do stupid war protests. Sorry to say, there's a lot more important things going on in the U.S. that deserve our attention, and we can affect change on domestic issues far more easily than we can change foreign policy issues.

There's plenty of reasons why Kerry couldn't muster more than 50% of the vote, and that's because while the GOP has declared war on liberalism for the past 20 years, we've been sleeping at the helm.

Melon

 

[Perris Calderon]

I'm just disturbed this vote fraud story is going nowhere in the media...it's so important

 

[Xie]

I'm just disturbed this vote fraud story is going nowhere in the media...it's so important

I think sadly it mostly has to do with $. If they run such storys they feel it in the pocketbook. Assimilate or be destroyed.

 

[j79zlr]

I'm just disturbed this vote fraud story is going nowhere in the media...it's so important

Which so exactly that is has absolutely no merit, they run Bush bashing stories all day, if the media isn't covering it then it has absolutely no base whatsoever, lies not excluded.

Where is the media coverage on the Oil for Food scandal?

 

[Perris Calderon]

ha...the wealthy owned media spin machine protects this president


there is no question about it, if this happened in the reverse for Kerry, Clinton,Gore, or any democrat, hannidy, rush, and the rest of the wealthy owned media spin machine would be all over this every waking minute of every day

 

[j79zlr]

Perris, I really think you are the only person that thinks there is a right-wing bias in the media. Hell, the media itself basically admits it leans left.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Perris, I really think you are the only person that thinks there is a right-wing bias in the media

well you're wrong, I'm not

your idea of "liberal media" is any information that casts dispersion on a republican...regardless of how valid...for instance, you actually think the 9/11 commission is some kind of liberal organization...why do you think this?...the media told it to you.


want more? the media convinced you that Clinton was weak on terrorism...is this true? no

as told to you under sworn testimony, even the Bush aids and advisor's tell you Clinton was the strongest in history...stronger on anti terrorism then Reagan, Bush Sr, and clearly stronger then Bush Jr (before the attack that Jr failed to guard against though warned was sure to come)

did the media tell you this?

no

did the media tell you that Reagan is the very founder of the terrorism we are fighting today?

no

did the media tell you that Reagan had the largest tax increase in the history of peace time presidents to that date?

no

did the media tell you that Bush tried to lower pay for military?

no

did the media tell you that this president was told before he made the case for war that his advisor's didn't agree with his interpretation of the "evidence" he used to make his war mongering case?

no

did the media tell you that Bush's own scientists told him before he made the case that those "tubes of mass destruction" couldn't be used for what he was making believe they were used for?

or those "vans of mass destruction"...told before he made the case that they were not involved by the very people that provided the vans in the first place...did the media tell you these things?

no

or that "balsa wood drone of mass destruction"...he was well informed this was a line of sight prop plane ( held together with masking tape )...the kind you give your nephew for Christmas, but the gift you would give your nephew would be better suited then this "drone"

any of that in this "liberal media" of yours?

no

no

and no again

and the story that started this thread...did the media tell you there are more votes then voters in the precincts with no paper trail?

no

or that these are the very precincts that the exit polls just so happen to be wrong?

well?

did they?

no

save for the few sources that manage to make facts known regardless of party, the media is clearly a right winged spin machine

for instance, the media tried to tell you that Clinton embarrassed the presidency...the fact was and remains that Clinton was and remains the most loved and respected president overseas in our history.

the media hasn't been "liberal" since Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine...since that time, it's nothing more then a Republican info-mercial

now, the wealthy that own the media can say what they want with absolutely no obligation to present for you facts that disagree with what they are trying to say

the evidence is abundant and clear...save for those that actually believe the media when they tell you they are "liberal"

Hell, the media itself basically admits it leans left.

that is the very point, and you make if for me

this is the wolf in sheep's clothing, isn't it

 

[Perris Calderon]

ha...read this...this article lays waste any of those "reasons the exit polls were wrong"...there are no reasons for them to be wrong

the link

Those faulty exit polls were sabotage

By now it is well-known and a part of the 2004 election lore how the exit polls by the major television networks were wrong.

Likely this faux pas will assume its place among wartime stories alongside the mistaken calls on Florida’s vote for one side and then for the other in the 2000 election. But the inaccuracies of the media’s polling deserve more scrutiny and investigation.

Exit polls are almost never wrong. They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state.

So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries. When I worked on Vicente Fox’s campaign in Mexico, for example, I was so fearful that the governing PRI would steal the election that I had the campaign commission two U.S. firms to conduct exit polls to be released immediately after the polls closed to foreclose the possibility of finagling with the returns. When the polls announced a seven-point Fox victory, mobs thronged the streets in a joyous celebration within minutes that made fraud in the actual counting impossible.

But this Tuesday, the networks did get the exit polls wrong. Not just some of them. They got all of the Bush states wrong. So, according to ABC-TV’s exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points.

To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that incompetent and invites speculation that more than honest error was at play here.

The mistaken exit polls infiltrated all three networks and the cable news outlets and had a chilling effect on the coverage of election night.

While all anchors refrained from announcing the exit-poll results, it was clear from the context of their comments that they expected Kerry to win and wondered if Bush could hold any key state.

Indeed, one network hesitated to call Mississippi for Bush because of the uncertainty injected by the bogus exit polls. Dark minds will suspect that these polls were deliberately manipulated to dampen Bush turnout in the Central, Mountain, and Pacific time zones by conveying the impression that the president’s candidacy was a lost cause.

The exit pollsters plead that they oversampled women and that this led to their mistakes. But the very first thing a pollster does is weight or quota for gender. Once the female vote reaches 52 percent of the sample, one either refuses additional female respondents or weights down the ones one subsequently counted.

This is, dear Watson, elementary.

Next to the forged documents that sent CBS on a jihad against Bush’s National Guard service and the planned “60 Minutes” ambush over the so-called missing explosives two days before the polls opened, the possibility of biased exit polling, deliberately manipulated to try to chill the Bush turnout, must be seriously considered.

At the very least, the exit pollsters should have to explain, in public, how they were so wrong. Since their polls, if biased or cooked, represented an attempt to use the public airwaves to reduce voter turnout, they should have to explain their errors in a very public and perhaps official forum.

This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play.

so this columnist sites that this foul play could be on either side of the fence, he suggests the Kerry camp might have had something to do with the inacruate exit polls.

in my mind this is rediculous, but never the less, if this is true, then those responsible must be held to account.

no matter what the reason, for either camp, voter fraud is voter fraud, and needs to be taken to task

 

[Perris Calderon]

this intire artcile has some interesting information and should be read...here are a couple of snippets;

Switching 5 votes per machine is probably all it would take to throw an election and nobody would ever see it unless someone compares the computer totals and exit polls.


now look to the next statement...if this is true, I am dumbfounded;

Walden O'Dell a Republican fund raiser and CEO of Diebold, which makes voting machines said he would deliver Ohio for President Bush.

this is too hard to beleive, isn't it...wait till you read the bullets that follow...if you're a patriot of this America, this will feel like a knife going into your heart;

SoCalDem has done a statistical analysis... ...on several swing states, and EVERY STATE that has EVoting but no paper trails has an unexplained advantage for Bush of around +5% when comparing exit polls to actual results.

* In EVERY STATE that has paper audit trails on their EVoting, the exit poll results match the actual results reported within the margin of error.

* Analysis of the polling data vs actual data and voting systems supports the hypothesis that evoting may be to blame in the discrepancies.

* The media was a bit taken aback that the results didn't match the exit polls AT ALL. Most of the commentators were scratching their head in disbelief at the results


so tell me...I don't know if these statements are true or false.

BUT IF THESE STATEMENTS ARE FACTS, HOW CAN ANY AMERICAN LOOK AT THEM AND LET THEM GO?

because if these statements are facts, then our government is over thrown

 

[Perris Calderon]

at the bottom of the above paper;

Feel free to pass this on to your Republican and Democratic friends. If you are American, this should concern you regardless of who won this election or wins future elections. If your process is flawed your democracy is flawed and everything you believe in is on the line. I am sure that people on the ground are acting in good faith and voting according to their values and beliefs. It is the people at the top that concern me.

 

[egghead]

at the bottom of the above paper;

Feel free to pass this on to your Republican and Democratic friends. If you are American, this should concern you regardless of who won this election or wins future elections. If your process is flawed your democracy is flawed and everything you believe in is on the line. I am sure that people on the ground are acting in good faith and voting according to their values and beliefs. It is the people at the top that concern me.

nice post perris and this is very true.